From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri May 23 11:22:31 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h4N9MVxv039248 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:22:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h4N9MOEc039242 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:22:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from miles@bluechiplearning.com) Received: from modem-535.ballistic.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.138.23]) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19J8lq-0000Ta-Qf for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 23 May 2003 10:23:27 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:22:48 +0100 Subject: FW: (SC22WG5.2741) Name of the language From: Miles Ellis To: "WG5 members (list)" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002101c32105$1ddbc100$5b67fea9@metcalf> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk ---------- From: michael.metcalf@t-online.de (Michael Metcalf) Reply-To: "Michael Metcalf" Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:27:15 +0200 To: "Miles Ellis" Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2741) Name of the language I agree entirely with Miles' reasoning. Not using F200x was a mistake that it's now too late to rectify. Regards, Mike Metcalf ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Ellis" To: Sent: 23 May 2003 09:57 Subject: (SC22WG5.2741) Name of the language > Personally I prefer Fortran 2003, essentially for John's first reason - > although I think I expressed it before as the year in which the final CD was > published. > > However, I think that those who refer to confusion between Fortran 2000 and > Fortran 2003 have a good point. Fortran 8X was always clearly a temporary > name - the only question being whether X was a decimal digit - as was > Fortran 9X. So there was no confusion when we chose Fortran 90 and Fortran > 95. > > But Fortran 2000 does sound more precise and, I suspect, those who have > heard about it will mostly have assumed that this is its actual name; it > would have been different if we had used the name Fortran 200X. (Fortran 2K > could also have meant Fortran 2048, of course!) > > So, on balance, despite my personal preference, I suspect that we should > keep the existing name.